Getting Columbine Right

More gun control wouldn't have stopped this tragedy. You're wrong, Al

10/12/00 10:40 a.m., National Review Online. More by Kopel about Columbine.

In the presidential debate last
night, Al Gore claimed that more gun control might have prevented the
Columbine murders. While this statement was not a lie — because Gore
may well have believed it — it was palpably false.

What Gore said was this:

Look, this is the year — this is in the aftermath of Columbine and
Paducah and all of the places around our country where the nation
has been shocked by these weapons in the hands of the wrong people.

The woman who bought the guns for the two boys who did that killing
at Columbine said that if she had had to give her name and fill out
a form there, she would not have bought those guns. That conceivably
could have prevented that tragedy.

The truth is this:

Several months before the Columbine massacre, the killers obtained
firearms from two suppliers. The first was a 22-year-old Columbine
graduate named Mark Manes (ironically, the son of a longtime Handgun
Control, Inc., activist). Manes bought a pistol at a gun show and gave
it to the two killers (who were under 18 at the time).

Colorado law prohibits giving handguns to juveniles, with certain
exceptions, and Manes is currently serving time for this offense in a
Colorado prison. The second supplier was an 18-year-old fellow student
at Columbine, Robyn Anderson, who bought three long guns for the
killers at a Denver-area gun show in December 1998.

Both Manes and Anderson were lawful gun purchasers and could legally
have bought the guns from a firearms dealer at a gun store, a gun
show, or anywhere else.

Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun
prohibition groups began putting out press releases about the "gun
show loophole." This is an audacious lie, since there is no "loophole"
involving gun shows. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is
everywhere else.

Mark Manes committed a felony by obtaining a handgun for the young
killers. He has never claimed that the existence of another law,
regarding gun show sales, would have deterred him.

What about Robyn Anderson?

On
June 4, 1999, Good Morning America presented a "kids and guns"
program. Anderson was flown to Washington for the segment. The first
part of the program discussed various proposals, including background
checks on private sales at gun shows.

Immediately after the introductory segment, Diane Sawyer introduced
Robyn Anderson and asked: "Anything you hear this morning [that would]
have stopped you from accompanying them and help[ing] them buy the
guns?" Anderson replied: "I guess if it had been illegal, if I had
known that it was illegal, I wouldn't have gone." Yet, on January 26,
2000, testifying before the Colorado House of Representatives
Judiciary Committee, Anderson claimed that even if the purchase were
legal, but there had been a background check of her entirely clean
record, she would not have purchased the guns.

Whichever version is true, the facts show that Anderson was not afraid
to divulge her identity when buying a gun for her wicked friends. When
Good Morning America asked, "And they actually paid for the guns, or
did you?" Anderson replied: "It was their money, yes. All I did was
show a driver's license." (The private collectors asked to see a
driver's license to verify that she was over 18, even though there was
no legal requirement that they do so.)

Since Anderson did not mind revealing her identity to three separate
sellers, is it realistic to believe that revealing her identity for an
instant check would have stopped her? The Colorado instant background
check does not keep permanent records on gun buyers, so even with
background checks on private sales at gun shows, there would have been
no permanent record of Anderson's purchase. And Anderson's new and
improved talking points claim only that the prospect of a permanent
record would have deterred her.

Putting aside Anderson's shifting stories, she is plainly an
irresponsible, self-centered person. After the murders took place, she
refused to come forward and help the police investigation. It took an
anonymous tip for the police to find out about her. And, in marked
contrast to Mark Manes, Anderson has never apologized for her role in
the Columbine murders.

Even if you accept the version of Robyn Anderson's stories that is
most supportive of gun control, no gun-show crackdown would have
prevented Columbine. The older of the two killers could have bought
his guns in a store legally, since he turned 18 before the Columbine
attack. Indeed, in a videotape made before the killings, the murderers
said that if they had not obtained their guns the way they did, they
would have found other ways. There is no reason to disbelieve them on
this point.

The only law that would have some effect on Robyn Anderson and similar
gun molls was introduced in the Colorado legislature this year by
Colorado State Representative Don Lee, whose district includes
Columbine. His "Robyn Anderson Bill" now makes it a crime to give a
long gun to a juvenile without the consent of his parents. This law
covers Anderson's first version of her story, in which she told Good Morning
America that the only deterrent for her would have
been a law making her conduct illegal.

Whatever the other merits of proposals to impose special restrictions
on gun shows, these would not have prevented Columbine, and it is
chillingly cynical for their proponents to use Columbine as a pretext.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org